[3] January 10, 1520, to Spalatin; January 26, to John Lang; February 5, to Spalatin; February 18, to Spalatin; April, Alved to Luther; Ma 5, May 17, May 31, June 8, and June 20, to Spalatin, with a letter of July or August to Peter Mosellanus, rector of the University at Leipzig.
[4] He alluded to the subject in his Sermon on the Ban.
[5] Köstlin, _Theology of Luther_, translated by Hay, I, 363.
[7] Alved's second book, the _Confutatio Inepti_, was dedicated to the Council and honorable citizens of the city of Leipzig on the 23d of April, and appeared in print in the middle of May. Its smooth and popular form roused Luther to this reply, which was put in press before the end of May, and published before the end of June.
[8] See Luther to Spalatin, July 20, 1519.
[9] See Luther to Spalatin, May 5, 1520. "Exiit tandem frater Augustinus Afveidenais cum sus offs," etc. He characterises Alved in this letter, and refers to the approval it found in Meissen in his letter to Spalatin of May 17th.
[10] The title is as follows: "Super apostolica ne-de, An Videlicet diuino sit iure nec ne, anque potifex qui Papa dici caeptus est, iure diuino in ea ipea president, no paru laudanda ex sacro Biblior. canone declaratio. sedita p. F. Augustinu Ahldesem Franciscanu, regularis (vt dicit) observuatíae sacredote, Prouin ciae Saxoniae, Sancte crucia, Sa-criq Biblioru canonis publi-cu lectore i couetu Lipsico, ad Reurendu in Chro patre & dom, dom Adolphu pricipe Illust. i Anhaldt ic Episcope Mersen-burge sem." See Super apostolica sed declario edita per Augustinum Alveldensem Bl.; E. S. Cyprian, Nütsliche Urkunden, Leipzig, 1718, II S. 160 f.
[11] Luther's famulus. "Ich werde meinem Bruder Famulus anstellen."--To Spalatin already on May 5th.
[12] "Contra Romanistam fratrem Augustinu, Alulden. Fran-ciscanu Leipaica Canonis Biblici publicu lictore eiusdem. F. Joanes Lonicerus. Augustinianus. VVITTENBERGAE, APVD, COLLEGIVM NOVVM. _ANNO. M.D.XX._" [13] Lonicer's reply had been preceded by one more detailed and less impetuous by Bernardi Feldkirch, teacher in the Wittenberg High School. This work is wrongly regarded as Melanchton's. Its title is: "CONFUTATIO INEP-ti & impli Libelli F. August. AL-VELD. Franciscani Lipsici, pro D. M. Luthero. Vmittenbergae, apud Melciorem Lottherum iuniorem, Anno M. D. XX."
[14] He requested the Nuncio Milits to secure authority for him to write.
[15] Cf. Luther in the Tractate: "They cling to me like mud to a wheel."
[16] "Eyn gar fruchtbar vu nutsbarlich buchbleyn vo dë Babstliche stul: vmud von sant Peter: vund vo den, die warhafftige schef-lein Christi sein, die Christus vner herr Petro befolen hat in sein hute vnd reglrung, gemacht durch bruder Augustinu Alueldt sant Francisci ordens tzu Leiptsk."
See Cyprian, _Urkunden_, II, 161 f.
On May 31, Luther puts the whole situation graphically in a letter to Spalatin as follows: "Lonicers Schrift wird morgen fergig sein. Die Leipziger sind besorgt, ihre Schülter zu behalten; sie rühmen, dases Erasmus zu ihnen kommen werde. Wie geschäftig und doch wie unglüchlich ist der Neid. Vor einem Jahre, da sie ührer uns, als währen wir besiegt, spotteten, saben sie nicht voraus, dass ihnen dies Kreut bevorstebe. Der Herr regiert...Ochsenfart soll sich wider das Büchlein Feldkirchens rüston, in welchem er durch gehechbelt wird. Ich habe ein deutsches Buch wider den Esel von Alveld fertiggestellt, welches jetzt under der Presse ist."
[17] "Von dem Bapstum zu Rome: wid der den hochberupton Romanisten zu Leipzck D. Martinus Lu-ther ther Agust. Vuittenberg." 50 leaves, quarto, last page blank.
[18] For titles of these editions see _Weimar Ed._, vi, 281.
[19] Luther in this tractate aims beyond the "undersized scribe of the barefoot friars at Leipzig," at the "brave and great flag-bearers who remain in hiding, and would win a notable victory in another's name," namely Prierias, Cajetan, Eck, Emser and the Universities of Cologne and Louvaine. Luther uses the epithet quoted above in one of his letters to Spalatin.
[20] "I welcome the opportunity to explain something of the nature of Christianity for the laity."
[21] "I must first of all explain what these things mean, the Church, and the One Head of the Church."
[22] "On this point we must hear the word of Christ, Who, when Pilate asked Him concerning His Kingdom answered, My Kingdom is not of this world. This is indeed a clear passage in which the Church is made separate from all temporal communities. Is not this a cruel error, when one places the Christian Church, separated by Christ Himself from temporal cities and places, and transferred to spiritual realms, is made a part of material communities?"
"No hope is left on earth except in the temporal."
[23] Among many things that Luther says on this point are the following: "According to the Scriptures the Church is called the assembly of all the believers in Christ upon the earth. This community consists of all those who live in true faith, hope and love, so that the essence, life and nature of the Church is not a bodily assembly, but an assembly of the hearts in one faith. Thus, though they be a thousand miles apart in body, they are yet called an assembly in spirit, because each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we sing of the Holy Ghost: 'Thou, Who through diverse tongues gatherest together the nations in the unity of the faith.' That means spiritual unity. And this unity is of itself sufficient to make a Church, and without it no unity, be it of place, of time, of person, of work, or of whatever else, makes a Church."
"A man is not reckoned a member of the Church according to his body, but according to his soul, nay, according to his faith...It is plain that the Church can be classed with a temporal community as little as spirits with bodies. Whosoever would not go astray should therefore hold fast to this, that the Church is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith, that no one is reckoned a Christian for his body's sake; that the true, real, essential, Church is a spiritual thing, and not anything external or outward."
"All those who make the Christian communion a material and outward thing, like other communities, are in reality Jews, who wait for their Messiah to establish an external kingdom at a certain definite place, namely Jerusalem; and so sacrifice the faith, which alone makes the kingdom of Christ a thing spiritual or of the heart."
In this and the following notes, for brevity's sake, various quotations are summarized and connected.
[24] "For the teachings of human experience and (Deut. xii:8) reason are far below the divine law. The Scriptures expressly forbid us to follow our own reason, Deut. xii: 'Ye shall not do...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes'; for human reason ever strives against the law (Gen. vi:5) of God. Therefore the attempt to establish or defend divine order with human reason, unless that reason has previously been established and enlightened by faith, is just as futile, as if I would throw a light upon the sun with a lightless lantern, or rest a rock upon a reed. For Isaiah vii makes reason subject to faith, when he says (vii:9): 'Except ye believe, ye shall not have understanding or reason.' He does not say, Except ye have reason, ye shall not believe. Therefore this scribe would better not have put forth a claim to establish the faith and the divine law by mere reason."
[25] "That the serpent lifted up by Moses, signifies Christ, is taught by John iii. If it were not for that passage, my reasoning might evolve many strange and weird fancies out of that type. That Adam was a type of Christ, I learn not from myself, but from St. Paul. That the rock in the wilderness represents Christ is not taught by my reason, but by St. Paul. None other explains the type but the Holy Spirit Himself. He has given the type and wrought the fulfillment, that both type and fulfillment and the interpretation may be God's own and not man's, and our faith he founded not on human, but on divine words. What leads the Jews astray but that they interpret the types as they please, without the Scriptures? What has led so many heretics astray but the interpretation of the types without reference to the Scriptures?"
[26] "The word Church, when it is used for such external affairs, whereas it concerns the faith alone, is done violence to; yet this manner of using it has spread everywhere, to the great injury of many souls, who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom. Of such a purely external Church, there is not one letter in the Holy Scriptures. The building and increase of the Church, which is the body of Christ, cometh alone from Christ, Who is its head. Christendom is ruled with outward show; but that does not make us Christians. The Church is a spiritual and not a bodily thing, for that which one believes is not bodily or visible. The external marks whereby one can perceive this Church is on earth, are Baptism, the Sacrament and the Gospel. For where Baptism and the Gospel are no one may doubt that there are saints, even if it were only the babes in their cradles."
[27] "It is evident that a type is material and external, and fulfilment of the type is spiritual and internal; what the type reveals to the bodily eye, its fulfilment must reveal to the eye of faith alone. The bodily assembly of the people signifies the spiritual and internal assembly of the Christian people in faith. Moses set a serpent on a pole and whosoever looked upon it was made whole. That signifies Christ on the cross. Whosoever believeth in Him is saved. And so throughout the entire Old Testament, all the bodily visible things in it signify in the New Testament spiritual and inward things, which one cannot see, but only possess in faith. St. Augustine says on John iii: 'This is the difference between the type and its fulfilment: the type gave temporal goods and life, but the fulfilment gives spiritual and eternal life.'"
"Aaron was a type of Christ and not of the Pope. Paul says the high priest typifies Christ; you say St. Peter. Paul says Christ entered not into a temporal building. You make the fulfilment to be earthly and external. If Aaron was a type in external authority, vestments and state, why was he not a type in all other external and bodily matters? The Old Testament high priest was not permitted to have his head shorn. But why does the Pope have a tonsure? The Old Testament high priest was a subject. Why then does the Pope have men kiss his feet and aspire to be king, which Christ Himself did not? Wherein is the type fulfilled?"
[28] Luther to Spalatin, June 8th: "Gegen den Esel von Alveld werde ich menen Angriff so enrichten dass ich des römischen Pabstes nich uneingedenk bin, und werde keinem von beiden etwas schenken. Denn solches erfordert der Stoff mit Nothwendigkeith. Endlicheinmal müssen die Geheimnisse des Antichrist offenbart werden. Denn so drangen sie sich selbst hervor, und wollen nicht weiter vorborgen sein."
To this Luther adds the significant statement: "Ich habe vor, einen öffentlichen Zettel auszulassen an den Kaiser und den Adel im ganzen Deutschland, wider die Tyrannei und die Nichstwürdigkeit des römischen Hofes."
[29] "'Feeding' in the Roman sense means to burden Christendom with many and hurtful laws. In 'feeding' it means to sit in the highest place and to have an office, it follows that whoever is doing this work of feeding is a saint, whether he be a knave, or a rogue, or what not. Where there is no love, there is no feeding. The papacy either must be a love, or it cannot be a feeding of the sheep."
[30] "The greater part of the Roman communion, and even some of the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and without struggle, and live under the power of Satan. The majority of those who hold so strongly to the authority of the Pope, and lean upon it, are themselves possessed by the powers of hell. Some of the popes were heretics themselves and gave heretical laws. These Roman knaves come along, place the Pope above Christ and make him a judge over the Scriptures. They say that he cannot err."
[31] "Das Bemulhen der Leipziger Gehässigkeit." To Spalatin, Jan. 10. "Die Nichstwürdigkeitem der Leipziger." To Joh. Lang, Jan. 26. "Die Kunstangriffder Leipziger Partei." To Spalatin, Feb. 5.
TO THE PAPACY AT ROME AN ANSWER TO THE CELEBRATED ROMANIST AT LEIPZIG[1] 1520 [Sidenote: A New Adversary] After all these years of fruitful rain and abundant growth something new has appeared on the scene. Many have essayed to attack me heretofore with vile abuse and glorious lies, yet without much success. But the latest to distinguish themselves are the brave heroes at Leipzig on the market-place, who desire not only to be seen and admired, but to break a lance with every one. Their armor is so wonderful that I have never seen the like before. They have put the helmet on the feet, the sword on the head, shield and breastplate on the back, they hold the spear by the point, and the whole armor becomes them so well as to mark them as horsemen of a new sort.[2] They would prove thereby not only that they have not frittered away their time with dream-books without learning anything, as I accused them, but would also achieve a great name as people who were conceived, born, nursed, cradled, fondled, brought up, and grown up in the Holy Scriptures. It would be no more than fair that whoever could, should be afraid of them, so that their labor and their good intentions might not be entirely in vain. Leipzig, to produce such giants, must indeed be rich soil.
That you may understand what I mean, observe: Sylvester, Cajetan, Eck, Emser,[3] and now Cologne and Louvaine have shown their knightly prowess against me in most strenuous endeavor, and received the honor and glory they deserved; they have defended the cause of the pope and of indulgences against me in such a manner that they might well wish to have had better luck, finally, some of them thought the best thing to do was to attack me in the same manner as the pharisees attacked Christ [Matt. 22:35]. They put forward a champion, and thought: If he wins, we all win with him; if he is defeated, he suffers defeat alone. And the super-learned, circumspect Malvolio[4] thinks I will not notice it. Very well, in order that all their plans may not miscarry, I will pretend not to understand their game. And I beg them in return, not to take notice, that when I strike the pack, I am aiming at the mule. And if they will not grant this request, I stipulate that, whenever I say anything against the newest Roman heretics and blasphemers of the Scriptures, not merely the poor, immature scribe of the bare-foot friars at Leipzig shall take it to himself, but rather the great-hearted flag-bearers, who remain in hiding, and yet would win a notable victory in another's name.
I pray every honest Christian to receive my words--though sometimes barbed with scorn or satire--as coming from a heart that is made to break with sorrow and to turn seriousness into jesting at the sight now beheld at Leipzig, where there are also pious people who would venture body and soul for God's Word and the Scriptures, but where a blasphemer can thus openly speak and write, who esteems and treats God's holy words no better than if they were the fabled pratings of some fool or jester at the carnival. Because my Lord Christ and His holy Word, even He who gave His own blood as the purchase-price, is held to be but mockery and fools' wit, I must likewise drop all seriousness, and see whether I, too, have learned how to play the fool and clown. Thou knowest, my Lord Jesus Christ, how my heart stands toward these arch-blasphemers. That is my reliance, and I will let matters take their course in Thy name. Amen. They must ever abide Thee as the Lord. Amen.
I notice that these poor people are seeking naught else than to gain renown at my expense. They cling to me like mud to a wheel. They would rather have questionable honor shamefully acquired than remain quiet, and the evil spirit uses the designs of such people only to hinder me from doing more useful things. But I welcome the opportunity to give the laity[6] some explanation of the nature of the Church,[7] and to contradict the words of these seductive masters. Therefore I intend to treat of the subject-matter directly, rather than to answer their senseless prattle. I will not mention their names, lest they achieve their true purpose and boastfully regard themselves capable of arguing with me in the Scriptures.
THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE We are discussing a matter which, taken by itself, is unnecessary, for any one could be a Christian without knowing anything about it. But these idlers who tread under foot all the great essentials of the Christian faith, must needs pursue such things and worry other people, in order to have some object in life.
[Sidenote: The Foundation of Papal Power] This then is the question: Whether the papacy at Rome, possessing the actual power over all Christendom (as they say), is of divine or of human origin,[8] and this being decided, whether it is possible for Christians to say that all other Christians in that world are heretics and apostates, even if they agree with us in holding to the same baptism, Sacrament, Gospel, and all the articles of faith, but merely do not have their priests and bishops confirmed by Rome, or, as it is now, buy such confirmation with money and let themselves be mocked and made fools of like the Germans. Such are the Muscovites, Russians, Greeks, Bohemians, and many other great peoples in the world. For all these believe as we do, baptise as we do, preach as we do, live as we do, and also give due honor to the pope, only they will not pay for the confirmation of their bishops and priests. They will not, like the drunken, stupid Germans, submit to extortion and abuse with indulgences, bulls, seals, parchments, and other Roman stock in trade. They are ready, too, to hear the Gospel from the pope, or the pope's ambassadors, and yet they are not sent to them.
Now the question is, whether all these may properly be called heretics by us Christians (for of such alone, and of no others, do I speak and write), or whether we are not rather the heretics and apostates, because we brand such Christians as heretics and apostates solely for the sake of money. For when the pope does not send the Gospel to them, and his messengers to proclaim it, although they are eager to receive them, it is clear as day that he is grasping for power and money through this confirmation of bishops and priests. But to this they will not agree, and therefore they are branded as heretics and apostates.
Now I have held, and still hold, that they are not heretics and apostates, but perhaps better Christians than we are, although not all, even as we are not all good Christians. This is challenged, after all its predecessors, by the fine little bare-foot book[9] of Leipzig, which comes along on clogs--nay, on stilts. It imagines that it alone (among all the others) does not step into the mud; perhaps it would gladly dance if some one would buy it a flute. I must have a try at it.
[Sidenote: The Insincerity of the Roman Claims] I say, first of all: No one should be so foolish as to believe that it is the serious opinion of the pope and of all his Romanists and flatterers, that his great power is of divine right. Pray observe, of all that is by divine right not the smallest jot or tittle is observed in Rome, nay, if they think of it at all, it is scorned as foolishness; all of which is as clear as day. They even suffer the Gospel and Christian faith everywhere to go to rack and ruin, and do not intend to lose a hair for it. Yea, all the evil examples of spiritual and temporal infamy flow from Rome, as out of a great sea of universal wickedness, into all the world. All these things cause laughter in Rome, and if any one grieves over them, he is called a _Bon Christian_, i. e., a fool. If they really took the commands of God seriously, they would find many thousand things more necessary to be done, especially those at which they now laugh and mock. For St. James says, "He that keepeth not one commandment of God, breaketh all." [Jas. 2:10] Who would be so stupid as to believe that they seek God's command in one thing, and yet make a mockery of all the others? It is impossible that any one should take one command of God to heart, and not at least be moved by all the others. Now there are ever so many who zealously guard the power of the pope, yet none of them ever ventures a word in favor of even one of the other much greater and more necessary commandments, which are so blasphemously mocked and scornfully rejected at Rome.
Furthermore, if all Germany were to fall on its knees, and to pray that the pope and the Romans should keep this power, and confirm our bishops and priests without payment, for nothing--even as the Gospel says, "Freely ye have received, freely give" [Matt. 10:8]--and provide all our churches with good preachers, because they have a sufficient abundance of riches to give money instead of taking it; and if it were urged and pressed, that this is their duty according to divine command: believe it surely, we should find all of them arguing with more insistence than any one ever did before, that it is not a divine command to go to so much trouble without pay. They would soon find a little gloss[10] with which to wind themselves out of it, just as they now find what they desire, to weave themselves into it. All our beseechings would not drive them to it. But since it means money, everything they dare to put forth must be divine command.
[Sidenote: Roman Greed and Extortion] The bishopric of Mainz alone, within the memory of men now living, has bought eight pallia[11] in Rome, every one costing about 30,000 _gulden_--not to mention the innumerable other bishoprics, prelacies and benefices. Thus are we German fools to be led by the nose and then they say: It is a divine command to have no bishop without Roman confirmation. I am surprised that Germany, which is by one-half or more in the possession of the Church,[12] still has so much as one _pfennig_ left by reason of the unspeakable, innumerable, insufferable Roman thieves, knaves and robbers. It is said that Antichrist shall find the treasures of the earth; I trow the Romanists have found them to such an extent as to make our very life a burden. If the German princes and the nobility will not interfere very shortly, and with decisive courage, Germany will yet become a wilderness and be compelled to devour itself. That would furnish the greatest pleasure for the Romanists, who do not think of us otherwise than as brutes, and have made a proverb concerning us at Rome: "Squeeze the gold from German fools, in any way you can."
The pope does not prevent this scandalous villainy. They all wink at it, yea, they think far more highly of these supreme arch-villains than they do of the holy Gospel of God. They pretend that we are hopeless fools, and that it is a divine command that the pope should have his finger in every pie and do as he pleases with every one, just as if he were a god on earth, and should not rather be the servant of all,[13] without any pay, if he wished to be--or were--the very highest. But before consenting to this, they would much rather surrender this power and not call this a divine command any more than any other.
But I hear you say, why do they fight so hard against you in this matter? Answer: I have attacked some higher things, which concern faith and God's Word. And when they were not able to contradict me, and saw that Rome does not trouble itself about such good things, they dropped them too, and attacked me on indulgences and the authority of the pope, in the hope of thus attaining the prize. For they knew very well that where money was concerned, the chief school of knaves in Rome would support them and not remain quiet. But Dr. Luther is just a little proud, and pays very little attention to the grunting and squealing of the Romanists; and this is well-nigh heartbreaking to them. But that does not bother my Lord Jesus, nor Dr. Luther, for we believe that the Gospel will and must continue. Let a layman ask such Romanists, and let them give answer, why they despoil and mock all of God's commandments, and rant so violently about this power, whereas they cannot show at all why it is necessary, or what it is good for. For ever since it has arisen, it has accomplished nothing but the devastation of Christendom, and no one is able to show anything good or useful that has resulted from it. Of this I will speak more fully if this Romanist comes again, and then, please God, I will throw light upon the Holy Chair at Rome and expose it as it deserves to be exposed.
I have said this, not as a sufficient argument for disputing papal power, but in order to show the perverted opinions of those who strain the gnats, but let elephants go through [Matt. 23:24], who behold the mote in the brother's eye and permit the beams in their own to remain [Matt. 7:3], only to the end that others may be stifled by superfluous and unnecessary things, or at least branded as heretics or by any other epithet that occurs to them. One of than is this delicate, pious Romanist at Leipzig. Let us now have a look at him.
I find three strong arguments by which this fruitful and noble little book[14] of the Romanist at Leipzig attacks me.
[Sidenote: The Arguments of the Romanists--1. Luther a Heretic and a Fool] The first, and by far the strongest, is, that he calls me names--a heretic, a blind, senseless fool, one possessed by the devil, a serpent, a poisonous reptile, and many other names of similar import; not simply once, but throughout the book, almost on every page.[15] Such reproaches, slanders and calumnies are of no account in other books. But when a book is made at Leipzig, and issued from the cloister of the bare-foot friars, by a Romanist of the high and holy observance[16] of St. Frauds, such names are not merely fine examples of mediation, but likewise strong arguments with which to defend papal power, indulgences, Scripture, faith and the Church.[17] It is not necessary that any one of these should be proved by Scripture or by reason; it is quite enough that they have been put down in his book by a Romanist and holy observant of the order of St. Francis.
And inasmuch as this Romanist himself writes that the Jews had overcome Christ on the cross with such arguments, I, too, must surrender, and acknowledge that as far as cursing and scolding, abuse and slander are concerned, the Romanist has surely beaten Dr. Luther. On this point he doubtless wins.
[Sidenote: The Argument from Reason] The second argument, to express it tersely, is that of natural reason.
This is the argument: A. Every community[18] on earth, if it is not to fall to pieces, must have a bodily head, under the true head, which is Christ.
B. Inasmuch as all Christendom is one community on earth, it must have a head, which is the pope.
[Sidenote: The Futility of the Argument] This argument I have designated with the letters A and B for the sake of clearness, and also to show that this Romanist has learned his A-B-C all the way down to B. However, to answer this argument: Since the question is whether the pope's power is by divine right, is it not a bit ridiculous that human reason (that ability which is drawn from experience in temporal things) is brought in and placed on a level with the divine law, especially since it is the intention of this poor presumptuous mortal to bring the divine law against me. For the teachings of human experience and reason are far below the divine law. The Scriptures expressly forbid us to follow our own reason, Deuteronomy xii, "Ye shall not do...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" [Deut. 12:8]; for human reason ever strives against the law of God, as Genesis vi. says: "Every thought and imagination of man's heart is only evil continually." [Gen. 6:5] Therefore the attempt to establish or defend divine order with human reason, unless that reason has previously been established and enlightened by faith, is just as futile as if I would throw light upon the sun with a lightless lantern, or rest a rock upon a reed. For Isaiah vii. makes reason subject to faith, when it says: "Except ye believe, ye shall not have understanding or reason." [Isa. 7:9] It does not say, "Except ye have reason, ye shall not believe." Therefore this scribe would better have left his perverted reason at home, or first have well established it with texts of Scripture, so as not to put forth so ridiculous and preposterous a claim and establish the faith and the divine law by mere reason. For if this reason of ours draws the conclusion that a visible community must have a visible overlord or cease to exist, it also must draw the further conclusion, that as a visible community does not exist without wives, therefore the whole Church[19] must have a visible, common wife, in order not to perish. What a valiant woman that would needs be! Again, a visible community does not exist without a common visible city, house and country; therefore the Church[19] must have a common city, house and country. But where will you find that? Verily, in Rome they are seeking just this with impatient eagerness, for they have made nearly the whole world their very own. Again, the Church[19] would likewise need to have in common its visible property, servants, maids, cattle, food, etc., for no community exists without them. See how gracefully human reason stalks along on its stilts.
A professor of theology ought to have considered in advance the clumsiness of such an argument, and proved the divine laws and works by the Scriptures, and not by temporal analogies and worldly reason. For it is written that the divine commandments are justified in and by themselves, and not by any external help.[20] [Ps. 19:9] Again, the wise man says of the wisdom of God: "Wisdom hath overcome the proud with her power." [Prov. 11:3] It is most deplorable that we should attempt with our reason to defend God's Word, whereas the Word of God is rather our defence against all our enemies, as St. Paul teaches us. [Eph. 6:17] Would he not be a great fool who in the thick of battle sought to protect his helmet and sword with bare hand and unshielded head? It is no different when we essay, with our reason, to defend God's law, which should rather be our weapon.
From this, I hope, it is clear that the flimsy argument of this prattler fails utterly, and, together with everything he constructs upon it, is found to be without any basis whatever. But that he may the better understand his own mummery, even in case I should grant that a process of reasoning might be entirely valid without the Scriptures, I will show that neither of his arguments is valid, neither the first, A, nor the second, B.
[Sidenote: The Argument Answered]